Talk:Deceivers (3.5e Race)
Criticism This race is, quite frankly, terrible; it's not worth any LA at all. 22:48, September 8, 2009 (UTC) :I was going to say something similar. My only question would be, if the LA was changed to +0, would this race be worth keeping? It's a solid, semi-interesting idea IMO, but it doesn't ooze quality. Thoughts? -- Jota 23:26, September 8, 2009 (UTC) ::At LA+0, It's a dwarf that can die in an AMF, is healed for a pathetic amount by a SLA it has (so it's basically saving 750 gp on a CLW in exchange for not being able to be hit by Heal or something useful) and with a +10 bonus on disguise checks. It also has to pay a moderate cost in gold and a large cost in time to revive itself. Not overpowered in the least, but not really very interesting. 02:44, September 9, 2009 (UTC) :::Well deleting it isn't improvement. I'll reduce it to LA +1 but I thought the inability to actually DIE for a thousand years was a pretty powerful ability at the time (I mean a PC with this ability can 'die' as may times as he wished without consequence). They were my 'robot curious about humanity' project which i simply started and kept on writing about. With these changes i am removing the delete template--EhSteve 04:35, September 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::It costs so much time to revive itself that it's going to be levels behind anyway, regardless of if it can "die" forever or not. It's not useful enough to warrant a LA, because of just how long it could take to get back to your normal HP. Plus, it doesn't even *work* to not die if you get hit with anything that doesn't kill you by HP loss. ::::Anyway, to give you an idea, at level 10 if you were to get dropped to, say, -100 HP, it would cost you a whopping 1000 hours to repair yourself. Whee! :::::1000 hours = 42 day unless someone revives you beforehand, in which case you can get revived for -1 level or if someone has a decent cleric level no levels AT ALL - hallelujah! - but 10,000gp is still pretty steep. Someone can carry around your corpse until such a time as you reconstruct (sure so.e campaigns work in merely weeks as such but if you able to sneak in a transition to black + resting music for that time you'll be right as rain). I wanted to make something original and it seems no other race simply reconstructs itself as some badass robots/golems should.--EhSteve 13:47, September 12, 2009 (UTC) Unclear Type This race is listed as a Constuct (Living Construct) and linked to the SRD construct type... which isn't particularly related to the Living Construct type from Eberron. So which one is it? The Eberron one might be ok as a PC race with low or no LA, but the SRD construct type is flat out unsuitable for a PC race without such a substantial LA as to make it unplayable. I mean seriously, immunity to all mind-affecting spells, anything that allows a fort save, almost any special attack variety or crit a PC would make (without magical assistance)... that's not cool for a PC to be walking around with at low levels. :Living Construct is a subtype of Construct, that is correct. Warforged are also Construct (Living Construct). The Living Construct subtype changes many of the construct base traits. -- Eiji Hyrule 05:09, September 13, 2009 (UTC) ::That is entirely true, but fails to answer my question as to which is actually intended here. If the type is supposed to be living construct, why link to the standard construct at all? TarkisFlux 07:25, September 13, 2009 (UTC) :::(Shrug) Why not? They are not completely devoid of Construct traits. Everything can be linked. Though, sign your posts, it's easy, just put ~ ~ ~ ~, minus spaces, behind your post. -- Eiji Hyrule 06:38, September 13, 2009 (UTC) ::::Well, clarity mostly. Here I see one linked thing and one unlinked thing that I happen to know about, but if I didn't know about it I would assume that the unlinked thing was some subsection of the linked thing (that doesn't exist in the linked post, where lots of inapplicable abilities are listed). If I didn't know about the Eberron type and I used that race with it's linked and largely irrelevant abilities, it would be seriously unbalanced for what we want. Is there a reason we can't link to the living construct type on the board, is it not OGL? And if not, why is the author not indicating it's status as a campaign specific type that isn't OGL and so isn't explained on this site, but should not be assumed to include all of the Construct abilities? It's just bad form to assume that people who look at your work will know what you're referencing if you don't actually reference or explain it. ::::And I'm aware of the signature aspect of wikis, it's just been a year or two since I was active in one and forums have made me lazy. Apologies. TarkisFlux 07:25, September 13, 2009 (UTC) :::::Clarification: I linked it to the Construct Type because it is standard formatting on pages to make as many links on your page as possible and I'm not game to put a little ECS in the subtype area. An example of this is having all mentions of attack rolls linked to SRD:Attack Roll because it's simply how it's formatted on any similar wiki and this process is repeated for any and all metions of attack rolls in it's many forms and contexts - touch attack rolls, ranged attack rolls etc. Regardless of how many times i mention attack rolls I am obligated to link it to the SRD link which is the relevant link which I am legally able to use (as ECS is not included in the SRD and is not free for mention at all) even if this has been done a hundred times over (it gets repetitive and annoying yes but i'm just used to making all relevant links as a habit of wiki formatting)--EhSteve 14:41, September 14, 2009 (UTC)